Possible rules changes for 2009

[Mike L]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

I don't think it says this -- I think ANY PF or 15 yard FM would be an AFD.

I get the rationale.

I don't get the rationale though, because their reasoning for this is because inside the 30, it's supposedly not that bad of a penalty, which I think can be argued. Also, all the wording says, "automatic first down". So I guess the assumption is only B commits these types of fouls? What happens if it's A that commits the foul? Do they get a pass on the supposed severity of the foul like the "worry" about the current OPI making it just to hard for the poor offense to overcome a major screw up on their part or does this become a loss of down foul too to make it equitable?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Mike L

I don't get the rationale though, because their reasoning for this is because inside the 30, it's supposedly not that bad of a penalty, which I think can be argued. Also, all the wording says, "automatic first down". So I guess the assumption is only B commits these types of fouls? What happens if it's A that commits the foul? Do they get a pass on the supposed severity of the foul like the "worry" about the current OPI making it just to hard for the poor offense to overcome a major screw up on their part or does this become a loss of down foul too to make it equitable?

I don't get this, either. NCAA and NFL football have been awarding an AFD on PFs forever. If the offense commits one during a play, they replay the down (or the defense can decline it). If it's after the play, the down counts. No big deal.

I do think that the deck is stacked a bit against the offense -- the AB1 exception with a hold that's 5 yards behind the line takes it from 1st and 10 to 1st and 25. Also, a PF or 15yd FM is severe enough to warrant an AFD as a penalty, IMO.

The rationale may be flawed a bit, but the change would be a positive one, at least that's how I see it.

[Mike L]

So a PF foul by B is severe enough to be 15 yds plus a new series but the same foul by A is only severe enough for the 15 yds? Just arguing the other side of the coin here.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Mike L

So a PF foul by B is severe enough to be 15 yds plus a new series but the same foul by A is only severe enough for the 15 yds? Just arguing the other side of the coin here.

I have never had a problem with a LOD provision for the offense on things like OPI. The offense knows what they are doing; the defense does not know what the offense is doing. It is very possible that the defense commits a foul and it was purely a mistake. The offense knows the play, where they are going and why they are going to get there. The offense deserves to lose a down for some of their actions.

Peace

[daggo66]

I could see the AFD for a face mask. I could also see the LOD for A. They really have no business anywhere near the face mask making it more likely it was done on purpose.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

I don't get this, either. NCAA and NFL football have been awarding an AFD on PFs forever. If the offense commits one during a play, they replay the down (or the defense can decline it). If it's after the play, the down counts. No big deal.

I know we have different horizons about "forever", but NFL's had the AFD a lot longer than NCAA for PFs. I don't remember when NCAA adopted it, but ISTR it's 20 yrs. ago or less.

Waaay back, there was a period of AFD for any penalty against either team! A penalty was deemed to interrupt the continuity of downs, necessitating a new series. I read somewhere in Spalding's that for a while there was confusion on that point, with some officials administering what today would be repeat-the-down following enforcement, and others starting a new series for the team in possession, because the line-to-gain rules didn't specify what constituted the "series" of downs. But that's ancient hx.

I do think that the deck is stacked a bit against the offense -- the AB1 exception with a hold that's 5 yards behind the line takes it from 1st and 10 to 1st and 25. Also, a PF or 15yd FM is severe enough to warrant an AFD as a penalty, IMO.

The rationale may be flawed a bit, but the change would be a positive one, at least that's how I see it.

The trouble with AFD for fouls by the defense isn't its severity, but its inconsistency. A team that gives up an AFD on 4th down is hurt a lot more than one that gives it up on 1st down. The later the down, the more severe AFD is in practice, yet it's for the same type of foul.

If anything, the rationale is stronger in favor of AFD for the situation given in the proposal, where half the distance appears to be an insufficient penalty. IIRC in Canadian football certain enforcements become AFD within certain distances of the offending team's GL.

BTW, did you know that for quite a while (at least into the 1930s, maybe 1940s), for certain major enforcements the line-to-gain was moved along with the spot? The idea was to penalize field position while not affecting down-&-distance, when the foul was not a tactical one.

Robert

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

I don't get this, either. NCAA and NFL football have been awarding an AFD on PFs forever.

But then if A fouls, depending on the location on the field, then the penalty may only be 3 yards and replaying the down. I know your situation where there was a facemask and neither team understood the enforcement was weird, but the result would be the same had A fouled on the other end of the field. Changing the penalty to AFD for fouls by B would be giving the offense and advantage. I'm not saying that is bad but I'm not sure that is what the NFHS wants to do.

Originally Posted by RichMSN

I do think that the deck is stacked a bit against the offense -- the AB1 exception with a hold that's 5 yards behind the line takes it from 1st and 10 to 1st and 25.

But A holding could have prevented B from sacking the QB who was standing 10 yards deep. So if A didn't hold it would be 2nd and 20 yards to go. The rule change would take that down to 1st and 20. Once again that favors the offense. It just depends on what the rules makers want as both sides have good points.